Solar farms don't take a huge amount of space. The roof tops of the chip factories are probably a perfectly fine place to augment the chip factory electric use
Why would additional spending cause sluggish economies? By definition added spending increases economic activity. You can debate the secondary effects of it but spending to gdp is more or less a direct line.
The populations are getting older, health costs will tick up, so you can expect to increase those costs. But immigration is discouraged so you have to keep your workforce healthy
Isn’t the idea that the money and resources have to come from somewhere?
Raise taxes or debt for the monetary side. Divert workers and other resources on the implementation side. Both of those might be better used by the private sector
When a Western government (or other state actor) decides to build something — public housing or satellites or a packet-switched network, for example — they don’t actually build it themselves. Governments don’t own construction companies and electronic design companies and research labs. The money goes to private actors who do the work.
So “divert” seems misleading. If the American government hadn’t “diverted” funds to build ARPANET half a century ago, we’d probably be stuck with the equivalents of AOL-style walled gardens instead of a single Internet because that’s the kind of network that private interests wanted to have.
... and this is called the "broken window fallacy".
You're right in that you remark that it's less bad than it initially seems. Some wealth is indeed recovered when the broken window is repaired. However everyone is by necessity worse off than if you didn't break the window in the first place.
It is not additional spending. It is the share of total spending controlled by government growing at the expense of share of spending being controlled by market actors like consumers and private firms.
This leads to less effective allocation of capital, because large monopolistic government bureaucracies don't have the structure or incentive to perform anywhere near as efficiently as market actors.
I think there is data that says the opposite (particularly in the context of Piketty), there is a reduction of efficiency when too much is controlled by overly concentrated capital structures.
If you believe that the best possible allocation of funds is through government spending as opposed to capitalism, yes. That's an exercise in begging the question, though, and historical support for the premise is uneven at best.
Maybe my brain has been too rotted by listening to Noam Chomsky in my youth, but government spending and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Everyone in washington is a capitalist, maybe withstanding 1-2 representatives. Large corps are constantly communicating with our leaders, far more frequently than their private constituents. To think that there is some secret, powerful office of the government where they are trying to dismantle capitalism through the use of welfare is a bogeyman. Welfare is there to prop up the ideology of capitalism as it smears against the rough road of reality.
Capitalism is primarily concerned with production, not welfare. Its central dogma is that society's welfare is naturally maximized along with its productive capacity, but there is essentially zero acceptance of that point of view anywhere on Earth, certainly among those in power.
Arguably the optimal operating point for an economic system, from a GDP point of view, is to maintain just enough public spending to keep a Robespierre from arising from the unwashed masses. Public spending beyond that is an unproductive waste.
Most of us would agree that sacrificing everything else on the altar of GDP is not what we want to do, though, so the (perfectly legitimate) question of where the compromises need to be made is always going to be on the table.
25% raise over four years after how many past years of frozen or low increased in wages and how many billions of share buybacks? If wage increases are below inflation you're taking a salary decrease.
An tool (maybe AI) that processes PDF statements and outputs the structured importable positions & transactions would be appealing to me. No live online link to be compromised, or at lease a simpler fetch statement PDF scrape (vs maintain scrape of broker sites).
I think this contains mostly correct analysis with respect to hiring experienced talent, but under emphasizes how unique each process is per company. Experience is a positive, but less positive because of it.
There is a lot of potential that could be made from newer hires combined with focused in house training/experimentation - which is what all these businesses had to do in their initial expansion - with not enough people of experience at scale available, and they probably had to do a running training ramp up multiple times over multiple generations of growth. This is in general is an underutilized strategy - esp for mature companies that need to essentially build a new generation of tech in-house.
It was an idea before Homecoming, and even before this 2015 paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547388/ But that aspect of Homecoming scripts were probably inspired by the general discussion of possible treatments over the years.
PTSD applies to more than just veterans. They're one of the most prominent discussed class of sufferers of PTSD, but there are victims of crimes, of simply accidents, or of war or terrorism that can also suffer PTSD.
Fungibility means that one thing can be differentiated from another. In a basic sense, drops of water are fungible. Dollars are non-fungible, because 1 dollar is not equal to another cash dollar. That other cash dollar could be from a set of marked bills stolen during a drug buy, or it could be a rare serial number making it more valuable. It's a binary state of "is this thing completely indistinguishable from another of thing of its kind"
fwiw, the person you're responding to doesn't seem to be using the word in this manner.
I am using it in that manner. Ethereum OFAC compliance is enforced at the protocol level [1] so not all Ethereum are equal. Just like your "drug buy" example, some Ethereum are tainted. In fact, thanks to the public blockchain, I would argue crypto is far more "non-fungible" than marked cash.
In general, cash is fungible. You gave an example of a "shade of fungibility" with marked cash used in crimes. Unfortunately, reality is not binary. Ethereum is fungible to the (increasingly small) non-OFAC compliant nodes, but non-fungible to the OFAC compliant nodes.
I don't understand how Tornado Cash (DPRK tool to evade sanctions) + Office of Foreign Assets control made Etherum non-fungible either, sounds like rambling to me
Besides the many other comments (esp. wrt. the moderation gauntlet problem), Stack Overflow never introduced a systematic way to differentiate answers that were good at the time for a version of software/environment, but become outdated over time. The users work around it on an ad-hoc basis, but often you end up reading through multiple generations of answers before getting to an answer for the current world.
There is a lot of evidence that exposure to Covid induces long term permanent damage to tissue and the ability of the immune system to fight off other infections.
If a patient is asked do they smoke, and they vape but don't smoke, I'm thinking that most will answer that they do not smoke.
Heres a thought: Data wise, lumping vaping with smoking is a favor to vaping manufacturers who resist stricter regulations. It lets them hide behind an argument that its safer while not showing what the actual risk is vs not doing it at all.
reply